About your Search

20130801
20130831
STATION
CSPAN 28
MSNBCW 18
CSPAN2 8
KQED (PBS) 7
KRCB (PBS) 6
MSNBC 6
CNNW 5
LINKTV 5
KCSM (PBS) 2
KGO (ABC) 2
CNN 1
FBC 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 115
French 2
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 118 (some duplicates have been removed)
on the metadata. if they make a mistake and they put in the wrong digit, they
they would do the same thing. it would not be the contents of the call but they metadata, ever is on your phone bill. then they will put -- they will do that for every drug case in the united states and take that information and put it into the database. a guy across the border was caught with $100,000 and would
it was all metadata and not content. that was false. one of us asked in a briefing could this be used so that you could hypothetically spy on a lover and he received a no. well it turned out my colleague was right and they have been 0
is having his phone calls or e- mails looked at by the nsa. what they do is collect metadata. 2 phone number of calls made, time and date. all that information is stored. let's put that in the context of what is happening today.
told there was efficient oversight. that was false. we were told it was all metadata
versus maryland, to get this idea that metadata is belong -- beyond the reach of the fourth amendment. involve collection on a single target and on a standard that is
're doing and, you know, since these two programs have come into effect, especially the metadata there's not been one incident of the nsa breaking any law
just got this course order that is hot off the presses. metadata,hat the which i assume is the collected data that we have been hearing about on domestic phone calls, not the phone conversation itself. then we going to a second category when you are investigating parts of that metadata. that is based on this order. this is category three. this is when you get a court order to investigate a person. is that a fair way to look at this. looking at this. looking at this. the only thing we are involved in surveilling are smaller groups that we have reasonable suspicion for. we are not surveilling everything that is in the database. you have to go to the specific requirements. bethere would have to reasonable suspicion that there is a terrorist. >> reasonable suspicion that it is relevant to an investigation of certain terrorist organizations. >> is there a percent of that data that you look at when you are getting to the big meta- data and go down to the next category. what percentage of the data is the next category. >> it is hard to quantify. i've heard anything from 0.0001%
metadata was shut down because it failed to provide intelligence. we need to take an equally close look at the phone records program. this program is not effective, and so it has to end. i'm not convinced by what i have seen. hear frome will witnesses today who said these programs are critical, have been identifying. the government is already collecting data on millions of innocent americans on a daily basis, based on a secret legal interpretation of the statute that does not, on its face, appeared to authorize this type of collection. so what will be next? when is enough enough? congress has to consider the powerful surveillance tools granted in government, and make sure there is stringent accountability and transparency. i have introduced a bill that addresses section 215 and 702. it involves wiretaps, other authorities under the patriot act. the protection of americans' privacy is not a partisan issue. i thank senator lee of utah and others for the support i hope other senators will join that -- effort.ied current member of the judiciary, former judge of the fisa court. i hope this w
? let's have your records. let's have the metadata. why collect it all? >> we would have preferred to have done that. we went to the information companies and said, we would like to be able to come to you with a request, based on probable cause, and find out if this number has talked to any international numbers. the telik commission companies said, you want us to store all that data, all that time, in a formula you can quickly access? we said, yes. that is what we need. they said, these are billing records. we just keep them for the time we need them. he said, can we pay you to do that? we cannot do that. there was a lot of mechanical pieces of this. >> you could tell them to hand over all the records on a daily basis. fisa court compel them? they already keep them for 18 months. how long do you need it? >> a lot longer than 18 months. >> that is the whole point. once you pick somebody up who has been involved in some untoward act, and has been communicating with parts of the world which may have originated this activity, you want to be able to go back and find out if the numbers
, this isn't -- this program, the metadata program that we're talking about here -- isn't about targeting americans. it's about trying to define, trying to decide what the lightest touch possible, who in america should be targeted for increased interest from the fbi or from our intelligence services. look, this is metadata. business records. the court has held it has no expectation of privacy. and therefore what the agencies have done is to go down this path frankly informing members of congress. i read the letters that were released this week in 2009 and 2011 that specifically invited members of congress to come read what the government was doing and the phrase in the letter was bulk metadata collection. >> let me bring in congressman amash. you just heard the, you know, say that americans' privacy is not being violated, and that your amendment that you almost passed, only lost by a few votes, would make it harder for them to get the information they need about terrorism. >> we don't have any evidence that it would make it that much more difficult. we're not going to have a perfect syste
. the program involves the collection of metadata from telephone calls. these are records maintained by the phone companies. they include the number the call was dialed from, the number the call was dialed to, the date and time of the call, and the length of the call. the records do not include the names or other personal identifying information. they do not include cell site or other location information and they do not include the content of any phone calls. these are the kinds of records that under long-standing supreme court precedents are not protected by the fourth amendment. the short court order you have seen published in the newspapers only allows the government to acquire the phone records. it does not allow the government to access or use them. the terms under which the government may access or use the records is covered by another, more detailed court order that -- it has to have suspicion that the phone number thing searched is associated with certain terrorist organizations. the order imposes restrictio on nsa to ensure that only properly trained analysts may access the
you for the opportunity. i am deeply suspicious of metadata mining. i want security and liberty. i do have a problem with them -- is anyone no how many law- enforcement agencies we have in -- does anyone know how many law-enforcement agencies we have in this country? it is out of control. >> nevada. republican line. what do you think of the nsa surveillance programs? do you support them? caller: i'd appreciate the opportunity to make a comment. i would like to thank law- enforcement for the efforts, but recognize the efforts must be done at constitutional means. section 213 sneak and peek searches allows the government access to american homes and private property without being properly served a search warrant as required by the fourth amendment. i have been unable to get be -- reconciliation as far as you can reconcile sneak and peek searches with the fourth amendment. >> where did you begin? caller: i began my efforts in the spring of 2004. i contacted presidents, senators, congressmen, ivy league confessors am a retired attorneys, and many others. i have received correspondence why
metadata. did this classification release tell us any more about that? >> there is internet electing, but this giant metadata phone collection is section 215 of the patriot act. judge bates says that the standards by which they will use the metadata has been flawed. the plan on how it was going to be using this and search it, basically smashing this program, two. >> there are probably more whether the administration likes it or not. private first class manning reported to prison to begin serving a 35 year sentence. his lawyer says the battle is not over yet. he is in the process of requesting a presidential pardon or at the very least reducing his sentence to time served. they gathered to protest the army judge's sentencing decision. >> and now he is going to be sitting in prison. raise your hand if you you will be part of the support campaign for bradley manning. raise your hand if you will be raising hell for bradley manning. >> liz has been traveling to fort meade each day to watch his court-martial play out. she was there and prosecutors showed the collateral murder video and whe
president obama justifies the nsa's collection of metadata, referring to millions of individuals' telephone records and internet, airline and credit card data. experts warn that the invasion of privacy is anything but. many players in government characterize the nsa's use of data as more or less benign. but metadata is more powerful than most realize. it can reveal a person's religious and political views, economic standing, sexual preference, personality, mental health, ethnicity. use of addictive substances and more. the ability to characterize groups by these traits might tempt some in government from finding terrorists to targeting groups because of their political leanings. so say three metadata specialists. they're proposed solution? give the citizenry the power to set controls on corporations and companies who collect their data, whether and with whom it can be shared, and whether or not it should be destroyed permanently. people won't have access to their digital data trails in a way similar to an e-mail in- box, so that people can monitor who views their data and who uses it. quest
than just collecting metadata on calls made in the u.s. they both point to this cnn interview by former f.b.i. counter-terrorism agent tim clemente, days after the boston marathon bombing. clemente was asked if the government had a way to get the recordings of the calls between tamerlan tsarnaev and his wife. >> we certainly have ways in it's not necessarily something that the f.b.i. is going to want >> woodruff: tice says after he saw this interview on television he called some former workmates at the n.s.a. >> well two months ago i contacted some colleagues in n.s.a., and we had a little meeting, and the question came up is the n.s.a. collecting everything right now because we figured that was the goal. and, yes, they are collecting everything right now, content word for word, every domestic communication in this country. >> woodruff: both of you know what the government says: that we're collecting a number of phone calls that are made, and the emails, but not were not listening to them. >> well i don't believe that for a minute. i mean that's why they had to be bluffdale that facilit
of metadata is excessive. i am sure my buddy thinks this. that ought to be debated. maybe the program should be narrowed. there has been robust oversight over the years. >> i want to be clear on this. who can accesses data and for what purposes? >> i think this was in a letter that went to the hill yesterday. papers were sent to congress in 2009. i cannot speak to any individual member of congress that is currently now with the knowledge of the program. in terms of access, access is strictly controlled. in order to create the data, one has to have reasonable suspicion that there is a tie to a specific terrorist group that is identified in the court order. >> just a terrorist group. if there is a foreign espionage group and i think my target is about to leave united states, i need to check out this phone number to see if he is in communication with a co- conspirator, are you going given that information? >> it is illegal. >> how does he get to the information? >> ask again? [laughter] we are friends, but not that close. >> how would you get that information? >> let me back up from the specifi
? and tore calling for the this metadata -- end to this metadata of phone numbers of everyone in the united states of forica without any regard criminal investigation going on or anything else. is toint we are aiming at have relevance, which is written into the section 215 of the patriot act, be observed and adhered to -- which it wasn't read what they're doing is creating a haystack in which to put a needle. >> commerce member thomas massie , republicans and democrats are not usually known for working together. talk about your concerns around nsa spying. >> my concerns to the oversight of the programs. and a reporting to people. in march, we had the director of national intelligence come to congress, to the senate, to tell us this program did not exist. yet last week, we had the head of the nsa here lobbying to fund the program. what we need is more oversight. maintain theoth program doesn't exist or tell us lies in congress, then ask us for funding. specifically what we need is more visibility into the fisa court rulings. we understand the need for secrecy in ongoing investigations, but w
'm talking about the metadata which was probably the biggest disclosure by edward snowden, the fact that millions and millions of records of americans' phone calls were being collected/stored. i'll let people use the word they want, by the nsa under a provision of the patriot action, section 215. raj, walk us through exactly how this program works in practice, who has access to it, what those records can be used for. >> sure. well, thanks, mike, and thanks to the aspen institute and to clark for pulling this all together. what i wanted to start out with is i firmly believe the u.s. government intelligence community, nsa in particular needs to be as transparent as possible consistent with our need to protect national security. and, obviously, it's that last piece that's the rub, and it makes it so difficult to talk about classified programs. but i would like to be as inform ty and help -- informative and helpful in this discussion as possible. and the reason i say that is my job as the general counsel's to make sure our activities are lawful. but i think that the legitimacy of nsa's
-mail looked at by the nsa. what are the nsa does is collect metadata, which is phone number to phone number. every call is made. no names. all that information is stored. let's put that in the context of what is happening today. there is this threat. i have seen the intelligence. knew -- i'mwhat i trying to say that everybody who has looked at this and analyzed it, this is the most precise threat we have seen since -- if not since september 11, certainly since 2006 one there was the liquid explosive plot coming out of london it would've blown up 10 airliners over the atlantic ocean, killing thousands of americans. this plot is very specific as to the enormity of the attack, the catastrophic nature of the attack, that they want to carry out. there are also a series of dates in there. as far as the credibility of the sources, the quality of the intelligence, it is there more than any i have seen in 10 years. this is not connecting the dots. this is having two large blobs. it is not difficult to do. as we are looking to see if it is in the middle east -- that is why the embassies could be clos
. >> the obama administration has said since the beginning we're gathering metadata but we're not actually listening in on phone calls, we're not actually gathering information, unless we have some reason. was there anything in either of these two sets of documents today that would undercut that argument? >> again, you have to separate the two of them, and that also goes to the statement that you cited the administration as saying. when it comes to collecting metadata, calling logs-- who called whom-- inside the united states, yes, by definition that doesn't include content, what was said. of course they do wiretap all the time, just not through that's program and there are extra rules in court approval for wiretapping inside the united states. there are essentially no rules for surveillance abroad. the u.s. constitution does not cover noncitizens not on u.s. soil. the domestic wiretapping laws are written to exclude that kind of foreign intelligence collection activity. it's kind of open season. whatever a country can get away with, it does, in the espionage world dispp what we've seen in
intelligence services. look, this is metadata. business records. the court held it had no expectation of privacy. therefore, what the agencies have done is go down this this path, frankly informing members of congress. i read the letters released this week in 2009 and 2011 that specifically invited members of congress to read and the phrase in h the letter was bulk metadata collection. >> let me bring in the congressman. you heard the general say american privacy isn't being violated and your amendment would make it harder for them to get the information they need about terrorists. >> we don't have any evidence that would make it that much more difficult. we are not going to have a perfect system unless you have people under constant lock down being monitored. there is a police state and you run the risk of a more dangerous society. you have senator widen, udal and lahey who say they don't think the program is effective. as to whether american privacy is being violated, ask my constituents. if i go to a town hall or meeting they will tell you privacy is being violated. the court case
of everyone social interaction, conducted over the telephone -- which is easy to tell from metadata, for seven years, for all americans, has maybe stopped one terrorist plot. >> stewart baker also testified at wednesday's hearing. he opposed proposals for greater oversight over the nsa surveillance programs. >> the last thought, and i've heard senator lewman dulls proposal and judge carr proposal, i have to express some doubts about the ideas appointing a council from outside the government to .epresent who or what is this person supposed to be representing? the terrorist? the court? some abstract interest in civil liberties? are we just want to let them decide? we got rid of the independent counsel law precisely because we were uneasy about having private parties just make up their own public policy without any check from the political decision- makers or without any client. i fear we're getting into the same situation if we start appointing counsel to represent something in the context of these cases. >> that was stewart baker. jim bamford, your response? certainly can do a much better job o
. >> to have admitted the passing on amounts of medical data. -- metadata. they are in compliance with laws but there is renewed concerns among politicians. >> the latest revelation is that they transferred massive amounts of meta data. the coals into such a bid by the germans. they are demanding answers. the government insists nothing has been done wrong. >> it has worked with the nsa and that is completely inappropriate. >> some are calling with a -- for a special parliamentary commission. >> we get the feeling the intelligence agencies only tell us what they absolutely have to instead of what they really should be telling us. >> there will be plenty to discuss when the control committee meets next monday. the german agencies will face questions about the extent of their cooperation. >> other stories making news around the world. japan's aggression in the nuclear power plant is likely discharging radioactive they have a barrier designed to contain it and it threatens to seek into a nearby bay. >> protesters are demanding morsi's reinstatement as president in egypt. >> allies of the prime
. do you favor the government collecting metadata from all communications in the united states? and the answer pretty much is, no, americans are not into that. only 21% of people favor that idea. but then if you ask the same people, the exact same question again, do you favor the government collecting metadata from all the communications in the u.s. and then you add this, as part of antiterrorism efforts? oh, well, when you put it that way, yes. yeah, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea. support for the exact same activity by the u.s. government jumps by 17 points when you ask the exact same question about the exact same behavior but mention terrorism in the same sentence, you get a 17-point jump in support. that was true when they asked about metadata, also true when they asked about the government actually listening in to your phone calls and reading your e-mails. this was the question, look, do you favor the government taking not just the metadata but the actual recordings, the actual text of almost all communications in the united states? you ask americans that and they
with regard to the metadata program. they want the program stopped. i don't think it will be. >> schieffer: let me ask you a little about one of the things he proposed for the fisa court. this is the court that meets in secret. and any time n.s.a. comes across something they think we need to go in and listen in. because they don't listen in, just because they get a tip or something. they have to go to this court to get permission to listen in. >> if the target is an american person. >> schieffer: if it's an american person. now one of the things the president is talking about doing is adding a kind of privacy advocate on to the court. this would be someone that when the government comes in and says, "we need to go in and wiretap this person. we need to eavesdrop," this person would say, "wait a minute here. that's going to far. you really don't have a reason to do that." is that workable? >> you know, the president was, i think, quite artful with that portion of his commentary. he didn't quite say what you said. there are two kinds of decisions that the court makes. one is getting a warran
, it is just metadata. as has been brought to our attention earlier, it was just phone numbers. but those are attached to names. yet we are not looking at names. are we supposed to trust these guys? i believe the senator from georgia on the questioning side was on the committee that you can't talk about what is going on was actually after these guys. are you worried about any more information coming out? anything because i am sworn to secrecy. we are not worried about anything else coming out, but we are constantly in a barrage of information. of the data,sue anthony romero addressed that in his recent comments. legitimate inis the public eye, it is illegal in our minds. let's break it down. the standard is really important to read the word of a law. they believe that the tangible are relevant. it defies the knowledge or the understanding when you are collecting every single phone call, data. how is that limited to relevance when you say you have all the phone numbers dated to and from the americans? they had me take that training or relevance is a bit more circumspect. they say it is not
tremendous growth and innovation. another one is metadata. metadata is -- combines cloud data, management, and software, and focuses on the health care industry. managing data for clinical trials, things like this. so many of the smaller names in the technology space that are innovative, and specific product oriented, have had very good growth and has good stock performance. >> right. skip, thank you very much. sorry, we have to leave it there. forgive me for interrupting you. >> no problem. >>> still ahead on the program, tracking your every move. retailers want to know what you like, what you don't, and the price you're willing to pay. they're spending big bucks in technology for that inside information. but is it paying off. >>> but first, let's get a check on how commodities, treasuries and currencies performed today. >>> another sign of growing optimism in the housing market. remax holding filed paperwork for an initial public stock offering. in just the past two years, the national real estate agency franchise expanded into china, hong kong and south korea. and hopes to raise $100 m
metadata. 2 phone number of calls made, time and date. all that information is stored. let's put that in the context of what is happening today. people say that you have seen the intelligence -- if you knew what i knew -- basically everyone who has analyzed this -- i think this is the most precise threat we have seen, if not since september 11, then from 2006, when there was that liquid explosion plot to blow up 10 airliners over the atlantic ocean. specific as tory the enormity of the attack, and the catastrophic nature of the attack they want to carry out. also a series of dates in there. as far as the credibility of the sources, quality of intelligence, it is there more than any i have seen in the last 10 years. this is not connecting the dots. are looking to see if it is in the middle east -- that is why the embassy was closed down. but it could also be worldwide. they are talking about an attack of this magnitude, and would change the direction of the world to blow up an embassy in the middle east? it is very essential to find out where the attacks would be carried out. this
and metadata is inevitably be swept up into the nsa's vast databases. in one instance, documented by the "wall street journal's" report, it was monitored. and the ap reports the nsa collected 56,000 e-mails every single year for three years longing to americans with no connection to terrorism before the top-secret fisa court stepped in and ordered the nsa to change its collection methods. for more on this topic i was joined earlier by a senior attorney at the center for constitutional rights in new york and by brian dugan, technologist at the open technology institute in d.c. and i started by asking bryan about the government's claim that it is not fully aware of the extent of edward snowden's leaks. >> it is incredibly disturbing that they do not know what was taken, no audit trail was created. that is the type of abrogation of trust that the united states government needs to restore and that is why the president of the united states needs to instate an independent, external council of experts to review the nsa spying. on all these systems that edward snowden was using, they, by default, shou
are collecting every single phone call. they say metadata is not content, but it can give a lot of content. how long i stay on the phone call. how often i call my mother as she struggles with breast cancer. how often i call my office. who i call in the government. whose private cellphone i happen to have to i do not call at office because they did not want a lot of my phone call from me, but i have a private cell phone, because we want to keep that somewhat between us. that data, would compiled and complete. this can give you a very full picture of what my day is like. i think the fourth amendment does cover the protection of my mid -- my mother data. is coming upsion tonight. c-span will hold -- host an examination of the nsa surveillance program. we will look at the white house recent decision to close some of the middle eastern and african embassies based it on interception intelligence and the impact of the high-level information leaks. joining us will be the freelance journalist and politico defense reporter. we will also take your phone calls, get your reaction on twitter and facebook. th
. you've got this meta-data here. it's now quarried under very, very narrow circumstances. if the nation suffers an attack, there are other things you could do with that meta-d meta-data. there are other tools. in that kind of emergency, perhaps you would go to the court and say now in addition to these limited inquiries we are now allowed to do we want to launch algorithms against it. >> cenk: isn't that saying yeah, we want to flip the switch and look through that data that are much bigger violations of your privacy, we can do it. >> right, i think that, you know, the question of the sow called debate that we're supposed to have is actually less important than the fact of the entire process of gathering the data at all. once that data is gathered the question isn't what they're doing with it at the moment of gathering. the question is how much can requesbeused against future act, those who want to challenge policies, journalists, whoever the government feels--obama can't be president forever, good, bad, or indifferent, any president, any military operation can decide this is a threat t
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 118 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)